Martin Armstrong: Understanding The Extremes On Both Sides

To make this perfectly clear, extreme views on the left or the right end up meeting in the same back parking lot where they agree the people are the great unwashed and are too stupid to see they need to be manipulated and controlled. In Europe, so-called democratically elected representative lie their ass off to get elected and then do their best to deny the people the right to vote on the very issues if the EU Commission is wrong will tear the continent apart in war. This idea that a single government would prevent war is childish and stupid. If that were true, there would never be a revolution where provinces, states, territories, or possession seek independence. The very idea of new world order is without any foundation in history and it up their with global warming – one giant fraud.

The problem with socialism is the assumption that they know better and that the people do not deserve to retain their own earnings. The extreme right-wing nuts-jobs argue that the people need to surrender their right so those in power can protect freedom. This is a real paradox in logic.

Undoubtedly, the perception that there is a single cause and effect prevents any progress in our expectations of political reform We end up with this overall tendency to paint everything the tone of this black/white thinking. It seems that human nature, when left to its own devices, is incapable to dynamic thinking as a group. Of course both sides just lie and throw in social issues to cover-up their economic agenda. They are like the street magicians who keep moving the shells around in circles to ensure the player picks the wrong one every time. Complicating the issue begins with always blaming someone else – never those in government. This is why career politicians are so dangerous. They are incapable of ever self-examination. Hence, progressing and moving forward as a society is sheer impossible.

When the economy turns down, targeting the rich is the favorite past-time of the left while the right will move against foreigners regardless of the race, creed, or language.

While it is nice to say we are all equal and religion or color mean nothing, when the economy turns down, career politicians need to blame someone. The Christians were the culprits for burning down Rome during the Great Fire of 64AD. The only fair criteria has been to attack the minority whoever they are at that moment in time. It is always the power of the strongest against the minority. Even Thrasymachus defined justice was only the will of the stronger and thus all governments are the same. The socialists use it to attack anyone with wealth against the 10 Commandments that forbid coveting their neighbor’s possessions. The extreme right justifies suppressing the rights of people to protect their freedom to maintain rights. The children starving in Africa is by the same hand of corruption regardless of the form claimed by government.

The primary issue is economics. Unfortunately, turn the economy down and what you get is finger-pointing and that always is directed at minorities or foreigners regardless of the culture. Evidence of that was the Boxer Rebellion in China against foreigners no different from going after the Irish-Italian Catholics during the 1800s USA. We see the same against Turkish in Germany or any foreigners. I disagree with any religion being involved in a state law for the freedom of religion is the freedom not to have one as well.

Whatever you declare to be illegal only renders that target tax-freeand a more viable business. Outlawing alcohol did not stop people from drinking but it funded the Mafia and point them on the map. Making prostitution illegal has led to kidnapping girls and forcing them into prostitution. You cannot eliminate human behavior by law no matter what. Illegal drugs have led to countless battles and the corruption of governments everywhere. There was no a single drug dealer in federal prison who was caught with a pile of cash whose cash was not amazingly stated as half of what was confiscated. They are told to shut-up for more money means more time.

The point about taxes is rather simple. If government at the federal level stopped taxing people then the lobbying would stop. If we ended CAREER politicians and returned to citizen democracy rather than a republic, things would amazingly become fairer for everyone. It is the taxation that creates the corruption and therein we will see the rise of the strongest to influence power regardless of the system.

The socialist and the extreme-right-wing agree in Washington right now. This is what I say that if you appointed Boehner dictator for a month, he would not change the system. I have worked with politicians around the world. I had a mandate from Hong Kong to try to buy land from Australia to relocate. I met with the Treasurer at the time Mr. Keating who later became Prime Minister. He told me flat outright – NO. Why? “Because they were not Labour people!” What did that mean? They would change the demographics and vote conservative and his party feared losing power.It was not about Australia – it was about the Labour Party.

It is always about power regardless of the side of politics. Everything Obama criticized Bush for he has done in spades. Was it Obama? No! The people behind the curtain do not change with the change between left and right up in front of the curtain. They remain the same so the people have no real power and if you think the Republicans would not raise taxes when the crunch comes – you are dreaming. Already, you have had John McCain vote to tax the internet. They are all the same.

There are two sides to a coin, us v them. I do not care if you have right-wing or left-wing government. Both have endorsed the “socialism”of Marx that creates their power base to justify manipulating the great unwashed stupid masses. As such it is their social benefit not that of the people. About 70% of the total national debt is accumulated interest. That did not build roads, schools, or even pay for wages. That is the bottom line. We have to reduce the size of government for they are indeed the “public servant” that contributed nothing to the national wealth of a nation but consume the wealth created by those who work in the private sector. Adam Smith was correct – everyone pursues their own self-interest. That applies to both sides.

The Founders were 1% ers. Get over it. It's always been Elites vs the people. Same as it ever was.....same as it ever will be. And no amount of safeguards or limits written down on paper will ever change that.

Yep pretty much nails it. Explains so much when the cheap energy and all it affords starts to decline and it is inflation adjusted over 10-15 years oil is up over 325% you start to see entropy get cracking. Hard to keep complex structures highly organised without large swathes of energy

Since 2008 you only have to check the amount of debt that has been produced by CB's to pretend that we are growing when in reality the dollar amount is going up the the real value of tangible items is decreasing. In the US you have

I've listened to some AnCaps and like alot of what they had to say however, I'm not fully sold on the idea that it can actually work. So we have to go in some general direction and that would be to first reduce in size and scope and then incrementally remove those last remaining functions of govt.

Spot on NoDecaf. I was going to weigh in almost verbatim. I do also have two other points to make regarding the author's position. One, I think his view of the left right paradigm is skewed. On the far right is not total governmental control but anarchy if I remember correctly. I think the liberty-minded are simply pushing for extremely limited government as described by the founders, which is just a few clicks to the left of no government. The second point of contention revolves around his interpretation that the tax system is what ails us. While I agree, I believe that our debt-based fiscal model run by the Federal Reserve has done the most damage. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to abolish the IRS altogether and institute a fair tax/flat tax/consumption tax paid at the register. But it's the control and manipulation of all things financial that has put the world on the verge of collapse and has allowed fascism to take root by having big government and business collude to benefit their mutual interest of retaining power.

One of the most important comments on deceit, I think, was made by Adam Smith. He pointed out that a major goal of business is to deceive and oppress the public.

And one of the striking features of the modern period is the institutionalization of that process, so that we now have huge industries deceiving the public — and they're very conscious about it, the public relations industry. Interestingly, this developed in the freest countries—in Britain and the US—roughly around time of WWI, when it was recognized that enough freedom had been won that people could no longer be controlled by force. So modes of deception and manipulation had to be developed in order to keep them under control.

And by now these are huge industries. They not only dominate marketing of commodities, but they also control the political system. As anyone who watches a US election knows, it's marketing. It's the same techniques that are used to market toothpaste.

And, of course, there are power systems in place to facilitate this. Throughout history it's been mostly the property holders or the educated classes who've tended to support power systems. And that's a large part of what I think education is—it's a form of indoctrination. You have to reconstruct a picture of the world in order to be conducive to the interests and concerns of the educated classes, and this involves a lot of self-deceit.

Sorry, love the 1st episode, but the quote is unsuitable for our ‘coming’ times.

Yeah, I think you're right.

This time is different, and little d "democracy" is done.

Of course the quote from the film really referenced the prior century. Mass media, mass advertising, and mass propaganda drove the machine very, very successfully - for 60 years or so. Too bad, because we seem to have "amused ourselves to death, " as Roger Waters puts it.

John D. Rockefeller was not a capitalist. He was a monopolist. Can't monopolize the USA without controlling the Federal government. So he (and his partners) did.

His grandsons (and their partners) realized you can't monopolize the world without World Government. And they're working on it. Just follow the Directors as they rotate from Federal to Foundations to Corporate Boards and back again: Elihu Root, John J. McCloy, The Dulles Brothers, and even Eisenhower are good places to acquire a historical perspective on the symbiote. Kissinger, Rubin, and Zbig can take you up to the present day.

The problem with socialism is the assumption that they know better and that the people do not deserve to retain their own earnings. The extreme right-wing nuts-jobs argue that the people need to surrender their right so those in power can protect freedom.

BULLSHIT

Oh right, like nazism and fascism are far right - nazi stands for national socialist I think. Gee, what's the word socialist doing there if it's right?

Socialists have a track record of highjacking what's in - the liberal brand and then the progressive brand - the whole rotten lot is socialist - as in nazism, USSR, CSSR and communism is socialism's mirrored friend.

Political persuasions are intentionally unclear. The real answer to this shit is not to give a shit.

Armstrong's argument is moronic to say the least. This idiotic quote sums it up: "The extreme right justifies suppressing the rights of people to protect their freedom to maintain rights."

Huh? So the so called "extreme right" oppresses people to defend their rights??

Furthermore, the whole concept of "LEFT" and "RIGHT" is in many ways deceiving, as it obscures the two real opposites:

There are those who favor a Large Powerful Central Government that oppresses the individual and takes away his rights, and there are those that favor Limited Government that respects individual rights. Big Government BY ITS VERY NATURE is corrupt as it favors Crony Capitalism and Dependency on Handouts. It is also grossly inefficient as it misallocates (or forces others to misallocate) scarce economic resources.

While Limited Government also has those defects, they are much smaller because by limiting the size and scope of the activities of Government (which is admittedly a necessary function) you also limit the economic and social damage that it causes.

In the USA, ALL Democrats are for Big Government, as are Most Republicans......only Libertarians stand for something else (but there's not much hope for them getting elected).

But anyway now that I have another box set up. I'm wildly Moderate. Some of the right wing ideas are obviously fronts for greedy selfishness. And equally obviously, a lot of leftists (who really participate!) are just basically roving gangs. Sometimes roving gangs of pacifists, but still roving around for sure.

Not that fun-nuts aren't joiners too. Some self-selecting could be going on. Blah blah, clash of worldviews and so forth - but that's social sciene. (Social science is fuzzy and impossible to experament with as history moves on and there is no control. Scientific sense of control: the control group.)

Mr. Armstrong is either confused about or is intentionally perpetuating the false left-right paradigm propaganda.

The political spectrum is from 100% or totalitarian government on the "left" to 0% government or anarchy on the "right". Stalin and Hitler were both on the extreme political left. Today, in the United State_, the jackass sock puppets are on the extreme left while the elephants are on the far left. Almost NOBODY is on the right, arguing for NO government, or even the center.

A republic envisioned by the framers of the U.S. constitution is in the political center, its powers strictly limited to protecting men's lives, liberty and property. Furthermore, the free enterprise economic system, the only one that promotes widespread prosperity, can only exist under the rule of law in a republic. Fascist, socialist & communist economic systems generally exist under a political oligarchy (or short-lived mob rule "democracy" that evolves to oligarchy), rule by the elite few, which is the most common form of government throughout history and today.

Watch the 29-minute JBS video "Overview of America" on YouTube to fit the missing pieces into your puzzle.

To confuse matters further, I remember reading in "The Lessons Of History" by Will and Ariel Durrant. They mentioned a quote from Socrates I think. "In every extreme there is a half truth". I don't think that the middle of the road is a good way to go either.

It is always amazing how the dumb-fucks crawl out of their holes and down-vote every Martin Armstrong article, after misreading and [intentionally?] misunderstanding it.

The point about taxes is rather simple. If government at the federal level stopped taxing people then the lobbying would stop. If we ended CAREER politicians and returned to citizen democracy rather than a republic, things would amazingly become fairer for everyone.

Anybody interpreting this as his cowtow to the tyranny of the majority must be brain-damaged.

1. In every fucking true republic the politicians were still elected somehow, i.e. there was some "democratic" element in it.2. If there is no taxation, there are no spoils to share, which would end parasitical career politicians. I do believe that would not end all, as people with inherited wealth could still be politicians for all their life, but it would be a big step in the right direction.If we don't have career politicians, we still need some folks to hold decider/organizer positions, and what better method is there than citizen democracy (small scale: everyone feels the impact of decisions.)That there also needs to be republic-style constitution of immutable laws has not been negated by that.